4 ms·

> And it hasn't - we're back to worse than we were during the gilded age. Poverty levels tells a different story.

by tertius 6y ago

JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Growing standard of living is part of it, sure. But because most people can scrape by now, is no excuse for the 1%.
- tertius 6y ago
  If it's getting better for all then why does it matter? Serious question.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - ABCLAW 6y ago
    1. The premise that everyone is benefiting is false. A tremendous amount of people are in industries that are shuttered, communities that are withering, locations that are in decline, or otherwise not 'getting better'. 2. The proper basis for comparison for the iterative generation of wealth and productivity isn't the past, it's the reasonable alternatives at the same time in development. Imagine you and I start with 100 coins each. In Scenario A, I take 30 of your coins. Then we fight each other and fritter away 10 coins each. Then our respective coin volume doubles. I end up with 240 coins. You end up with 120. We're both better off than in the past. In total, we have 360 coins. In Scenario B, I steal all your coins. Without any coins, you can't fight me, so neither of us loses any further coins. Our coin volume doubles. I end up with 400 coins. In Scenario C, I don't steal your coins and because we're not busy fighting each other, no losses occur. We both end up with 200 coins. In total we have 400 coins. I think the lesson here is self evident, and that's without raising the fact that growth slows and societies collapse due to wealth disparities. If the simple thought experiment isn't enough and you'd like something a bit more involved, read up on the history and philosophy surrounding our transition away from the feudal system. Our distaste of titled hereditary privilege was very well deserved.
    - tertius 6y ago
      I freely give up my coins for comfort and use my time with my family. If someone else chooses otherwise and earns more money than me, honestly. I can't complain about the difference in our individual net. Freedom is better than control. It leaves everyone better. Control will kill us all. I don't really believe that, but it is an analog to your "is self evident" claim. Except I think your belief is much stronger.
- Rillen 6y ago
  It is not an excuse for the 1% but it still means that today way more people are better of.
  - naringas 6y ago
    there's just way more people too
    - Rillen 6y ago
      And they are better off. Good point! :)
  - tertius 6y ago
    People are better off partly because of the 1%. The system that allows some too gain in excess also allows all to flourish.
  - ajsnigrutin 6y ago
    I live in a former communist country... holy fuck is that hard to explain to some people. Back then, everybody was poor, and some party members were less poor. Now, everybody has a lot more compared to then, but because someone else has even more than that (huge house, a bmw,...), they blame capitalism. They literally stood in line to buy cabbages, and now they complain that strawberries are expensive (in december!). Only thing worse ae the pensioners, who complain that there's "too much choice" in the stores... how they used to have one chocolate (which didn't have enough cocoa to actually be a chocolate), and now theres 3/4 of an aisle of just chocolates... the chocolate they used to buy is still there, but it's shitty compared to other stuff, then they buy a milka and complain that Lindt is too expensive...
- kuzimoto 6y ago
  As long as they didn't cheat or steal to get there, why does it matter? I'm fairly sure wealthy people don't have tons of cash on hand, most of money is in the companies they built or invested in. According to this article [0] Jeff Bezos net worth is $188.7 billion. His shares of Amazon represent $172.8 billion. While unlikely, if Amazon stock plummeted he would have "only" $15.9 billion. While still a lot on its own, the vast majority of his money is not even usable (immediately). [0] https://marketrealist.com/p/how-many-shares-of-amazon-does-jeff-bezos-own/ https://marketrealist.com/p/how-many-shares-of-amazon-does-j...
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    That is so naieve as to be probably a troll? The rules were changed, removing limits on sizes of banks and lenders, interest rates, how much the boss can skim, treatment of pension funds and on and on and on. All in the interest of, those with money get more money. To the point they have almost all the money. It's irrelevant how much cash they have on hand. They own the economy, lock stock and barrel. The rest of us can only hope for a small stream to cover our expenses and little else. This has been covered by literally thousands of articles. I suggest reading something, anything on the subject.
    - kuzimoto 6y ago
      > They own the economy, lock stock and barrel. The rest of us can only hope for a small stream to cover our expenses and little else. How do you explain all of the successful people that started from nothing, and got to where they are now? So what solution do you propose? Do they not deserve the money they made? The majority of businesses fail, don't the ones that succeed deserve a reward?
- tertius 6y ago
  Net worth disparity between richest and average is irrelevant. It doesn't change anything. Everyone is better off and there are some that are, because of the system that made it better for everyone one, much better off. Just a symptom of a system that benefits all.

> And it hasn't - we're back to worse than we were during the gilded age. Poverty levels tells a different story.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago

Growing standard of living is part of it, sure. But because most people can scrape by now, is no excuse for the 1%.

tertius 6y ago
If it's getting better for all then why does it matter? Serious question.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ABCLAW 6y ago
  1. The premise that everyone is benefiting is false. A tremendous amount of people are in industries that are shuttered, communities that are withering, locations that are in decline, or otherwise not 'getting better'. 2. The proper basis for comparison for the iterative generation of wealth and productivity isn't the past, it's the reasonable alternatives at the same time in development. Imagine you and I start with 100 coins each. In Scenario A, I take 30 of your coins. Then we fight each other and fritter away 10 coins each. Then our respective coin volume doubles. I end up with 240 coins. You end up with 120. We're both better off than in the past. In total, we have 360 coins. In Scenario B, I steal all your coins. Without any coins, you can't fight me, so neither of us loses any further coins. Our coin volume doubles. I end up with 400 coins. In Scenario C, I don't steal your coins and because we're not busy fighting each other, no losses occur. We both end up with 200 coins. In total we have 400 coins. I think the lesson here is self evident, and that's without raising the fact that growth slows and societies collapse due to wealth disparities. If the simple thought experiment isn't enough and you'd like something a bit more involved, read up on the history and philosophy surrounding our transition away from the feudal system. Our distaste of titled hereditary privilege was very well deserved.
  - tertius 6y ago
    I freely give up my coins for comfort and use my time with my family. If someone else chooses otherwise and earns more money than me, honestly. I can't complain about the difference in our individual net. Freedom is better than control. It leaves everyone better. Control will kill us all. I don't really believe that, but it is an analog to your "is self evident" claim. Except I think your belief is much stronger.
Rillen 6y ago
It is not an excuse for the 1% but it still means that today way more people are better of.
- naringas 6y ago
  there's just way more people too
  - Rillen 6y ago
    And they are better off. Good point! :)
- tertius 6y ago
  People are better off partly because of the 1%. The system that allows some too gain in excess also allows all to flourish.
- ajsnigrutin 6y ago
  I live in a former communist country... holy fuck is that hard to explain to some people. Back then, everybody was poor, and some party members were less poor. Now, everybody has a lot more compared to then, but because someone else has even more than that (huge house, a bmw,...), they blame capitalism. They literally stood in line to buy cabbages, and now they complain that strawberries are expensive (in december!). Only thing worse ae the pensioners, who complain that there's "too much choice" in the stores... how they used to have one chocolate (which didn't have enough cocoa to actually be a chocolate), and now theres 3/4 of an aisle of just chocolates... the chocolate they used to buy is still there, but it's shitty compared to other stuff, then they buy a milka and complain that Lindt is too expensive...
kuzimoto 6y ago
As long as they didn't cheat or steal to get there, why does it matter? I'm fairly sure wealthy people don't have tons of cash on hand, most of money is in the companies they built or invested in. According to this article [0] Jeff Bezos net worth is $188.7 billion. His shares of Amazon represent $172.8 billion. While unlikely, if Amazon stock plummeted he would have "only" $15.9 billion. While still a lot on its own, the vast majority of his money is not even usable (immediately). [0] https://marketrealist.com/p/how-many-shares-of-amazon-does-jeff-bezos-own/ https://marketrealist.com/p/how-many-shares-of-amazon-does-j...
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  That is so naieve as to be probably a troll? The rules were changed, removing limits on sizes of banks and lenders, interest rates, how much the boss can skim, treatment of pension funds and on and on and on. All in the interest of, those with money get more money. To the point they have almost all the money. It's irrelevant how much cash they have on hand. They own the economy, lock stock and barrel. The rest of us can only hope for a small stream to cover our expenses and little else. This has been covered by literally thousands of articles. I suggest reading something, anything on the subject.
  - kuzimoto 6y ago
    > They own the economy, lock stock and barrel. The rest of us can only hope for a small stream to cover our expenses and little else. How do you explain all of the successful people that started from nothing, and got to where they are now? So what solution do you propose? Do they not deserve the money they made? The majority of businesses fail, don't the ones that succeed deserve a reward?
tertius 6y ago
Net worth disparity between richest and average is irrelevant. It doesn't change anything. Everyone is better off and there are some that are, because of the system that made it better for everyone one, much better off. Just a symptom of a system that benefits all.